Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Sunday, January 22, 2006
L'art pour l'art
L'art pour l'art
Twilight of the Idols by Friedrich Nietzsche [1895]
The fight against purpose in art is always a fight against the moralizing tendency in art, against its subordination to morality. L'art pour l'art means, "The devil take morality!" But even this hostility still betrays the overpowering force of the prejudice. When the purpose of moral preaching and of improving man has been excluded from art, it still does not follow by any means that art is altogether purposeless, aimless, senseless--in short, l'art pour l'art, a worm chewing its own tail. "Rather no purpose at all than a moral purpose!"--that is the talk of mere passion. A psychologist, on the other hand, asks: what does all art do? does it not praise? glorify? choose? prefer?
With all this it strengthens or weakens certain valuations. Is this merely a "moreover"? an accident? something in which the artist's instinct had no share? Or is it not the very presupposition of the artist's ability? Does his basic instinct aim at art, or rather at the sense of art, at life? at a desirability of life? Art is the great stimulus to life: how could one understand it as purposeless, as aimless, as l'art pour l'art?
One question remains: art also makes apparent much that is ugly, hard, and questionable in life; does it not thereby spoil life for us? And indeed there have been philosophers who attributed this sense to it: "liberation from the will" was what Schopenhauer taught as the overall end of art; and with admiration he found the great utility of tragedy in its "evoking resignation." But this, as I have already suggested, is the pessimist's perspective and "evil eye." We must appeal to the artists themselves.
What does the tragic artist communicate of himself? Is it not precisely the state without fear in the face of the fearful and questionable that he is showing? This state itself is a great desideratum, whoever knows it, honors it with the greatest honors. He communicates it--must communicate it, provided he is an artist, a genius of communication.
Courage and freedom of feeling before a powerful enemy, before a sublime calamity, before a problem that arouses dread--this triumphant state is what the tragic artist chooses, what he glorifies. Before tragedy, what is warlike in our soul celebrates its Saturnalia; whoever is used to suffering, whoever seeks out suffering, the heroic man praises his own being through tragedy--to him alone the tragedian presents this drink of sweetest cruelty.
Twilight of the Idols by Friedrich Nietzsche [1895]
The fight against purpose in art is always a fight against the moralizing tendency in art, against its subordination to morality. L'art pour l'art means, "The devil take morality!" But even this hostility still betrays the overpowering force of the prejudice. When the purpose of moral preaching and of improving man has been excluded from art, it still does not follow by any means that art is altogether purposeless, aimless, senseless--in short, l'art pour l'art, a worm chewing its own tail. "Rather no purpose at all than a moral purpose!"--that is the talk of mere passion. A psychologist, on the other hand, asks: what does all art do? does it not praise? glorify? choose? prefer?
With all this it strengthens or weakens certain valuations. Is this merely a "moreover"? an accident? something in which the artist's instinct had no share? Or is it not the very presupposition of the artist's ability? Does his basic instinct aim at art, or rather at the sense of art, at life? at a desirability of life? Art is the great stimulus to life: how could one understand it as purposeless, as aimless, as l'art pour l'art?
One question remains: art also makes apparent much that is ugly, hard, and questionable in life; does it not thereby spoil life for us? And indeed there have been philosophers who attributed this sense to it: "liberation from the will" was what Schopenhauer taught as the overall end of art; and with admiration he found the great utility of tragedy in its "evoking resignation." But this, as I have already suggested, is the pessimist's perspective and "evil eye." We must appeal to the artists themselves.
What does the tragic artist communicate of himself? Is it not precisely the state without fear in the face of the fearful and questionable that he is showing? This state itself is a great desideratum, whoever knows it, honors it with the greatest honors. He communicates it--must communicate it, provided he is an artist, a genius of communication.
Courage and freedom of feeling before a powerful enemy, before a sublime calamity, before a problem that arouses dread--this triumphant state is what the tragic artist chooses, what he glorifies. Before tragedy, what is warlike in our soul celebrates its Saturnalia; whoever is used to suffering, whoever seeks out suffering, the heroic man praises his own being through tragedy--to him alone the tragedian presents this drink of sweetest cruelty.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Can feel the brain cells dying...
Having a cup of morning tea and surfing the internet brought me to various msn myspace blogs. All I have to say is that if Anne or Alice ever put one of these pages up, they are gonna get their little rumps paddled.
Some of these kids pages are so chock full of crap that it is almost impossible to tear your eyes away from the visual, audio and verbal diarrhea.
"*groans* *pop* daaamn that was good, i jsut took you're cherry *sparks up a cigarette*" from a young man in the military to a young woman.
"+I'm Indigo+
+I'm a "Mommie" of 4... Azrielle, Axel, Chill & Frisky+
+I'm not what your expecting, so don't think I am+
+Don't label me, I'm not a soup can+
+I state my opinion, don't like it, oh well+
+I'm old enough to know better but young enough not to care+
+I go to shows, I go to raves... Does that bug you?+
+Just like your average teenager, I smoke and I do drugs... But I DON'T drink is that a plus?+
+Yes, I can dress up but then I can dress down+
+I'm me... Please bring yourself to my table and don't try to be someone else, I'll turn you away+
+I'm one of the nicest people you'll meet, but also the biggest bitch+
+Don't bring drama near me... I hate it and don't need it so fuck off+"
This line is my favorite~
"Who I'd like to meet:
+Anyone who can carry on a conversation for more then 2 minutes+"
Between information such as that from teens with angst, to artists blogs where the folks couldnt spell their way out of a paper bag much less paint. What slays me is the tendency to use 'self-taught' and 'outsider' artist as a marketing tool, a phenomenon that has exploded since people starting selling the results of their artistic machinations on Ebay. I won't carry on with this line of thought, as it will make me sound like even more of a bitch than I already am.
Some of these kids pages are so chock full of crap that it is almost impossible to tear your eyes away from the visual, audio and verbal diarrhea.
"*groans* *pop* daaamn that was good, i jsut took you're cherry *sparks up a cigarette*" from a young man in the military to a young woman.
"+I'm Indigo+
+I'm a "Mommie" of 4... Azrielle, Axel, Chill & Frisky+
+I'm not what your expecting, so don't think I am+
+Don't label me, I'm not a soup can+
+I state my opinion, don't like it, oh well+
+I'm old enough to know better but young enough not to care+
+I go to shows, I go to raves... Does that bug you?+
+Just like your average teenager, I smoke and I do drugs... But I DON'T drink is that a plus?+
+Yes, I can dress up but then I can dress down+
+I'm me... Please bring yourself to my table and don't try to be someone else, I'll turn you away+
+I'm one of the nicest people you'll meet, but also the biggest bitch+
+Don't bring drama near me... I hate it and don't need it so fuck off+"
This line is my favorite~
"Who I'd like to meet:
+Anyone who can carry on a conversation for more then 2 minutes+"
Between information such as that from teens with angst, to artists blogs where the folks couldnt spell their way out of a paper bag much less paint. What slays me is the tendency to use 'self-taught' and 'outsider' artist as a marketing tool, a phenomenon that has exploded since people starting selling the results of their artistic machinations on Ebay. I won't carry on with this line of thought, as it will make me sound like even more of a bitch than I already am.
Friday, December 30, 2005
Good grades and more
Received my grades for last semester, and they were all A's with one A- (in traditional printmaking, which I feel is my weakest studio class), I'll try harder this next semester to see if I can't remove the -
It was a really fun semester and I felt like I was running/working all the time even though it was only 15 credits (Painting, Video Art/Editing, Printmaking, Drawing Applications, Modern Art History).
Next semester is a full 18 credits with some heavy duty HS (which I need a lot of to finish the BFA), spring classes include Painting2, Video2, Printmaking2, Advanced Digital Imaging, Theory and Practice of Visual Art Criticism, and The Intellectual History of Western Civilization. Should be fun and very interesting.
Here's a favorite Robert Genn letter from November that I never got around to posting. Once again he's got a great site for artists at http://www.painterskeys.com and as always his letters are posted with his permission.
Ignorance
November 25, 2005
Yesterday my friend Joe Blodgett brought a big yellow print
into the studio. It was sort of modern, with a large,
indecipherable signature across the lower end. "What do you
think of this?" he asked. "Interesting," I said, which is what
I say when I don't know what to say. "Why don't you run it
through those 'evaluation points' that you use when you jury?"
he suggested. I protested that my points were subject to
modification--sometimes there's something major that upsets
them. "Like, 'I like it,'" I said.
My evaluation points are compositional integrity, sound
craftsmanship, colour sensitivity, creative interest, design
control, gestural momentum, artistic flair, expressive
intensity, professional touch, surface quality, intellectual
depth, visual distinction, technical challenge and artistic
audacity. If you were to assign a maximum value of 10 to each
of these fourteen points, an almost impossible 140 would be the
top mark. Loosely speaking, a total of around 50 is often
enough for an "in." My system doesn't favour realism over
non-objective work, but my jury duty has shown me that hard-won
realism often wins out with these points.
Cruising the print and looking at it in different lights over
the afternoon, I was hard pressed to find points to hand out.
It ended up with 30. While it had a sort of confident flair and
a look of audacity, it was mostly what I call "basic." As a
piece of print art--embellished or not--I saw it as
unchallenging and average. Though bright in colour, it was dull
in spirit. It suggested some sort of bare ambition--which has
its appeal, but is often not enough in the big scheme of
things. As a juried show-piece the print wouldn't make it. Mind
you, some other juror--even using the same set of points--might
have evaluated it differently. Joe phoned later and told me the
print was the work of Dale Chihuly. "Chihuly's the
internationally-known glass artist. That one is worth a couple
of thousand--edition's almost sold out." I told him I hadn't
been aware that Chihuly made prints. "That's how ignorant you
are," said Joe.
I've asked Andrew to illustrate Chihuly's print in the current
clickback. See URL below. Once again I had been victimized by
my ignorance. Or was it innocence? I'll stick to my guns.
Ambition and audacity are quite frequently mistaken for talent
and value.
Best regards,
Robert
PS: "Knowing is false understanding. Not knowing is blind
ignorance." (Nan Ch'uan)
Esoterica: Do we all crave a level playing field? It's been my
observation that innocent-eyed jurors--often from another
village--are best able to separate the better from the
poorer--the grain from the chaff. All art carries a provenance
that ranges from humble to exalted, from non-existent to
stellar. What we're looking for here is the truth. In art, is
the truth possible? "Real knowledge," said Confucius, "is to
know the extent of one's ignorance."
It was a really fun semester and I felt like I was running/working all the time even though it was only 15 credits (Painting, Video Art/Editing, Printmaking, Drawing Applications, Modern Art History).
Next semester is a full 18 credits with some heavy duty HS (which I need a lot of to finish the BFA), spring classes include Painting2, Video2, Printmaking2, Advanced Digital Imaging, Theory and Practice of Visual Art Criticism, and The Intellectual History of Western Civilization. Should be fun and very interesting.
Here's a favorite Robert Genn letter from November that I never got around to posting. Once again he's got a great site for artists at http://www.painterskeys.com and as always his letters are posted with his permission.
Ignorance
November 25, 2005
Yesterday my friend Joe Blodgett brought a big yellow print
into the studio. It was sort of modern, with a large,
indecipherable signature across the lower end. "What do you
think of this?" he asked. "Interesting," I said, which is what
I say when I don't know what to say. "Why don't you run it
through those 'evaluation points' that you use when you jury?"
he suggested. I protested that my points were subject to
modification--sometimes there's something major that upsets
them. "Like, 'I like it,'" I said.
My evaluation points are compositional integrity, sound
craftsmanship, colour sensitivity, creative interest, design
control, gestural momentum, artistic flair, expressive
intensity, professional touch, surface quality, intellectual
depth, visual distinction, technical challenge and artistic
audacity. If you were to assign a maximum value of 10 to each
of these fourteen points, an almost impossible 140 would be the
top mark. Loosely speaking, a total of around 50 is often
enough for an "in." My system doesn't favour realism over
non-objective work, but my jury duty has shown me that hard-won
realism often wins out with these points.
Cruising the print and looking at it in different lights over
the afternoon, I was hard pressed to find points to hand out.
It ended up with 30. While it had a sort of confident flair and
a look of audacity, it was mostly what I call "basic." As a
piece of print art--embellished or not--I saw it as
unchallenging and average. Though bright in colour, it was dull
in spirit. It suggested some sort of bare ambition--which has
its appeal, but is often not enough in the big scheme of
things. As a juried show-piece the print wouldn't make it. Mind
you, some other juror--even using the same set of points--might
have evaluated it differently. Joe phoned later and told me the
print was the work of Dale Chihuly. "Chihuly's the
internationally-known glass artist. That one is worth a couple
of thousand--edition's almost sold out." I told him I hadn't
been aware that Chihuly made prints. "That's how ignorant you
are," said Joe.
I've asked Andrew to illustrate Chihuly's print in the current
clickback. See URL below. Once again I had been victimized by
my ignorance. Or was it innocence? I'll stick to my guns.
Ambition and audacity are quite frequently mistaken for talent
and value.
Best regards,
Robert
PS: "Knowing is false understanding. Not knowing is blind
ignorance." (Nan Ch'uan)
Esoterica: Do we all crave a level playing field? It's been my
observation that innocent-eyed jurors--often from another
village--are best able to separate the better from the
poorer--the grain from the chaff. All art carries a provenance
that ranges from humble to exalted, from non-existent to
stellar. What we're looking for here is the truth. In art, is
the truth possible? "Real knowledge," said Confucius, "is to
know the extent of one's ignorance."
Monday, December 19, 2005
Creativity and love
Creativity and love
This morning Rita E. Acuna of Philadelphia, PA, wrote: "I think
I would have preferred not to be gifted with creativity. I had
found a true soulmate. He was a pilot, a man of high intellect,
who wrote the most extraordinary poetry for and about me. He
could communicate and share his deepest thoughts and feelings
to me. And I lost him. I was careless, my fault. So sad. I
would appreciate your thoughts as to the selfishness, demands
and impracticality of being creative in a practical world as it
relates to the great loves of our lives."
Thanks Rita. Good question. I don't know enough about your
particular situation to know whether it was your creativity
that caused your pilot to take off--but I do have a few
thoughts on the dark side of creativity. Many of us are focused
to such a degree that it's easy to become inconsiderate of
others. After all, the sun rises and sets on us, doesn't it?
Sometimes it's the "law of opposite effect"--sensitivity,
believe it or not, can breed insensitivity--a rotten thing for
the near and dear. Fact is, art-love competes with human love.
And art-lovers can drive their significant others to drink.
Serially.
The good news is that it's not either/or. Many of the
successful creators that I know tend rather to keep their
creativity bottled up. This way it doesn't get on other's
nerves, and it may also be good for the muse. While it's all a
wonderful riddle, quiet, creative action should be the main
currency. This leaves plenty of time for being nice. Both
personal art and human relationships can be mystical unions
that exact the highest of standards.
My advice is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Being big in art need not mean being small in life.
Historically, many artists have left trails of hurt and fields
of broken dreams. But these "enfant terribles" with all their
rough edges may be an outworn myth. Rita mentioned "selfish,
demanding and impractical." In my books art doesn't have to be
any of these. Actually, it's the flip side--unselfish,
undemanding of others, and dedicated practicality--that make us
the interesting and attractive folks that we are. For those who
would venture into the wonder of art-making, it's important not
to confuse the valuable "child-like approach" with common,
garden-variety immaturity.
Best regards,
Robert
PS: "The heart of creativity is an experience of the mystical
union; the heart of the mystical union is an experience of
creativity." (Julia Cameron)
Esoterica: Rita's cup bubbles over. "Every day I'm reborn," she
writes, "because of the creative process and the use of its
gifts. Every breath I take, every sight I see is a miracle to
appreciate and enjoy. It renews the creative spirit that plays
within my soul and being." Brilliant as this sentiment is,
sometimes it's difficult for others to live with. Personally, I
think it has to do with "art envy,"--something I've been
meaning to discuss with Sigmund Freud. It's pretty hard to beat
this all-encompassing joy. "Creativity," says therapist Eric
Maisel, "is the gift that keeps on giving."
Current clickback: If you would like to see selected responses
to the last letter, "Art direct," about the art-marketing ideas
of Elin Pendleton, and others, please go to:
http://www.painterskeys.com/clickbacks/art-direct.asp
This morning Rita E. Acuna of Philadelphia, PA, wrote: "I think
I would have preferred not to be gifted with creativity. I had
found a true soulmate. He was a pilot, a man of high intellect,
who wrote the most extraordinary poetry for and about me. He
could communicate and share his deepest thoughts and feelings
to me. And I lost him. I was careless, my fault. So sad. I
would appreciate your thoughts as to the selfishness, demands
and impracticality of being creative in a practical world as it
relates to the great loves of our lives."
Thanks Rita. Good question. I don't know enough about your
particular situation to know whether it was your creativity
that caused your pilot to take off--but I do have a few
thoughts on the dark side of creativity. Many of us are focused
to such a degree that it's easy to become inconsiderate of
others. After all, the sun rises and sets on us, doesn't it?
Sometimes it's the "law of opposite effect"--sensitivity,
believe it or not, can breed insensitivity--a rotten thing for
the near and dear. Fact is, art-love competes with human love.
And art-lovers can drive their significant others to drink.
Serially.
The good news is that it's not either/or. Many of the
successful creators that I know tend rather to keep their
creativity bottled up. This way it doesn't get on other's
nerves, and it may also be good for the muse. While it's all a
wonderful riddle, quiet, creative action should be the main
currency. This leaves plenty of time for being nice. Both
personal art and human relationships can be mystical unions
that exact the highest of standards.
My advice is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Being big in art need not mean being small in life.
Historically, many artists have left trails of hurt and fields
of broken dreams. But these "enfant terribles" with all their
rough edges may be an outworn myth. Rita mentioned "selfish,
demanding and impractical." In my books art doesn't have to be
any of these. Actually, it's the flip side--unselfish,
undemanding of others, and dedicated practicality--that make us
the interesting and attractive folks that we are. For those who
would venture into the wonder of art-making, it's important not
to confuse the valuable "child-like approach" with common,
garden-variety immaturity.
Best regards,
Robert
PS: "The heart of creativity is an experience of the mystical
union; the heart of the mystical union is an experience of
creativity." (Julia Cameron)
Esoterica: Rita's cup bubbles over. "Every day I'm reborn," she
writes, "because of the creative process and the use of its
gifts. Every breath I take, every sight I see is a miracle to
appreciate and enjoy. It renews the creative spirit that plays
within my soul and being." Brilliant as this sentiment is,
sometimes it's difficult for others to live with. Personally, I
think it has to do with "art envy,"--something I've been
meaning to discuss with Sigmund Freud. It's pretty hard to beat
this all-encompassing joy. "Creativity," says therapist Eric
Maisel, "is the gift that keeps on giving."
Current clickback: If you would like to see selected responses
to the last letter, "Art direct," about the art-marketing ideas
of Elin Pendleton, and others, please go to:
http://www.painterskeys.com/clickbacks/art-direct.asp
Sunday, December 18, 2005
When humor tells us troubling truths...about ourselves
There is a time for humor, and there is a time not for humor. But then, as they say, all humor has a grain of truth to it. And if that's the case, then yesterday's behavior by President Bush - and the reaction to it by the audience and the media - is a disturbing commentary about both the current White House, and about ourselves.
The moment occurred during the President's speech about Iraq in Philadelphia. His comments, the media's reflexive complicity, and the audience's laughter, is an incredible, if silent, chronicle of just how callous our society has become to the tragic real-life consequences of our current government's immoral behavior. Here was the interchange:
QUESTION: Since the inception of the Iraqi war, I'd like to know the approximate total of Iraqis who have been killed. And by Iraqis I include civilians, military, police, insurgents, translators.
THE PRESIDENT: How many Iraqi citizens have died in this war? I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis. We've lost about 2,140 of our own troops in Iraq. Yes.
QUESTION: Mr. President, thank you --
THE PRESIDENT: I'll repeat the question. If I don't like it, I'll make it up. (Laughter and applause.)
So let's review: immediately after the President told us that more than 32,000 people have been killed, he moved seamlessly into joking around - and the audience yukked it up, as if they either hadn't even heard the casualty count, or didn't care. 32,000 people - that's like filling up an NBA arena and killing everyone in it. How could someone immediately then start hamming it up? Worse, how could the people sitting there laugh along?
The answer is clear for both the President and the audience. The reason the president could laugh it up after telling us an NBA arena's worth of people had been killed is because he and the neoconservative advisers around him who pushed this war have never actually served in combat. Their closest experience to combat was likely seeing the first scenes of Saving Private Ryan - that's it. Because of that hard truth, they clearly see killing 32,000 people as just not a big deal. It is a number representing something they see only on TV - sort of like a score on a video game. You can laugh after a video game, right?
This is the same reason we see no remorse from the White House about the fact that this war was based on lies. They don't care - they wanted a war, goddammit, and it's easy to want a war if you've never been shot at, and if you know that when you send troops in, no one you know personally will be put in danger.
For the audience, which really represents the media and the broader American public, the answer is even more troubling. Sadly, with the end of the military draft, we have been viscerally disconnected from the real-life consequences of our government's military decisions. Sure, the vast majority of Americans oppose the war. But only a tiny minority of Americans actually have to carry out the war, and deal with the blood-and-guts consequences of getting killed, getting maimed, or having a family member killed or maimed.
So while at one moment we mourn the bloodshed and get angry at our president, we can, in the next moment, be laughing with him as he yukks it up - because in the age of an all-volunteer military, the mourning and the anger don't really flow from a deeply personal place anymore. Put another way, had you or your family member been killed or injured in Iraq - or even had you or they been serving in a combat area - you wouldn't find it so easy to start laughing with the guy who put you or your family member in danger immediately after he told you how many people had been killed in a war based on his lies.
This last point is why we should all be particularly disgusted with politicians of both parties who willingly play politics with the Iraq issue. Barely a day goes by when we don't hear some self-serving hack in Congress trying to have it both ways on Iraq, desperately in pursuit of their own personal ambition, or the ambition of their party, quite literally not caring about the fact that scores of innocent human beings - both Iraqi and American - are being maimed or killed in a war based entirely on false pretenses. This is the reason why people like Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA) are literally screaming at their congressional colleagues - most of whom have never served in the military - to wake up, look in the mirror, and see how odious their ongoing complicity in this war really is.
Murtha is merely one courageous voice - and he is tapping into the broader realization that we have reached a truly low point in American history, in which life and soul have been beaten out of our political consciousness to the point where issues of war, peace, and violence are seen as just another TV storyline in a pop culture society that can - and will - just change the channel.
This is, in no uncertain terms, the definition of a society overrun by immorality and unpatrotic behavior: when politics becomes so divorced from people, that our own political leaders can publicly refer to ongoing wars in political terms, not human terms; when vice presidents with five draft deferments can stand up in a tuxedo and impugn the patriotism of war heroes; when presidents who purport to care about "moral values" can break into a comedy act after telling us 32,000 people have been killed; and when the public and the media either laughs along or says nothing at all.
David Sirota
The moment occurred during the President's speech about Iraq in Philadelphia. His comments, the media's reflexive complicity, and the audience's laughter, is an incredible, if silent, chronicle of just how callous our society has become to the tragic real-life consequences of our current government's immoral behavior. Here was the interchange:
QUESTION: Since the inception of the Iraqi war, I'd like to know the approximate total of Iraqis who have been killed. And by Iraqis I include civilians, military, police, insurgents, translators.
THE PRESIDENT: How many Iraqi citizens have died in this war? I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis. We've lost about 2,140 of our own troops in Iraq. Yes.
QUESTION: Mr. President, thank you --
THE PRESIDENT: I'll repeat the question. If I don't like it, I'll make it up. (Laughter and applause.)
So let's review: immediately after the President told us that more than 32,000 people have been killed, he moved seamlessly into joking around - and the audience yukked it up, as if they either hadn't even heard the casualty count, or didn't care. 32,000 people - that's like filling up an NBA arena and killing everyone in it. How could someone immediately then start hamming it up? Worse, how could the people sitting there laugh along?
The answer is clear for both the President and the audience. The reason the president could laugh it up after telling us an NBA arena's worth of people had been killed is because he and the neoconservative advisers around him who pushed this war have never actually served in combat. Their closest experience to combat was likely seeing the first scenes of Saving Private Ryan - that's it. Because of that hard truth, they clearly see killing 32,000 people as just not a big deal. It is a number representing something they see only on TV - sort of like a score on a video game. You can laugh after a video game, right?
This is the same reason we see no remorse from the White House about the fact that this war was based on lies. They don't care - they wanted a war, goddammit, and it's easy to want a war if you've never been shot at, and if you know that when you send troops in, no one you know personally will be put in danger.
For the audience, which really represents the media and the broader American public, the answer is even more troubling. Sadly, with the end of the military draft, we have been viscerally disconnected from the real-life consequences of our government's military decisions. Sure, the vast majority of Americans oppose the war. But only a tiny minority of Americans actually have to carry out the war, and deal with the blood-and-guts consequences of getting killed, getting maimed, or having a family member killed or maimed.
So while at one moment we mourn the bloodshed and get angry at our president, we can, in the next moment, be laughing with him as he yukks it up - because in the age of an all-volunteer military, the mourning and the anger don't really flow from a deeply personal place anymore. Put another way, had you or your family member been killed or injured in Iraq - or even had you or they been serving in a combat area - you wouldn't find it so easy to start laughing with the guy who put you or your family member in danger immediately after he told you how many people had been killed in a war based on his lies.
This last point is why we should all be particularly disgusted with politicians of both parties who willingly play politics with the Iraq issue. Barely a day goes by when we don't hear some self-serving hack in Congress trying to have it both ways on Iraq, desperately in pursuit of their own personal ambition, or the ambition of their party, quite literally not caring about the fact that scores of innocent human beings - both Iraqi and American - are being maimed or killed in a war based entirely on false pretenses. This is the reason why people like Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA) are literally screaming at their congressional colleagues - most of whom have never served in the military - to wake up, look in the mirror, and see how odious their ongoing complicity in this war really is.
Murtha is merely one courageous voice - and he is tapping into the broader realization that we have reached a truly low point in American history, in which life and soul have been beaten out of our political consciousness to the point where issues of war, peace, and violence are seen as just another TV storyline in a pop culture society that can - and will - just change the channel.
This is, in no uncertain terms, the definition of a society overrun by immorality and unpatrotic behavior: when politics becomes so divorced from people, that our own political leaders can publicly refer to ongoing wars in political terms, not human terms; when vice presidents with five draft deferments can stand up in a tuxedo and impugn the patriotism of war heroes; when presidents who purport to care about "moral values" can break into a comedy act after telling us 32,000 people have been killed; and when the public and the media either laughs along or says nothing at all.
David Sirota
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
